SARMIENTO V.

COURT OF APPEALS 250 SCRA 108

Details Category: Civil Law Jurisprudence

FACTS:
Cruz was the owner of a parcel of land. Adjacent to this lot is one wherein Sarmiento had a house built on. On trying to cause the relocation of her lot, Cruz found out that Sarmiento was encroaching on her property. When Cruz talked to Sarmiento about constructing a new fence, which will cover her true property, the latter vehemently refused to do so and threatened Cruz with legal action. For fear of being sued in court, she sought judicial relief. The trial court decided in favor of Cruz. Sarmiento tried to assail this decision by saying that the issue was on ownership of the portion of land and thus, the action should have been an accion reivindicatoria and not forcible entry.

HELD:
A careful reading of the facts averred in said complaint filed by Cruz reveals that the action is neither of forcible entry nor of unlawful detainer but essentially involves a boundary dispute, which must be resolved in an accion reivindicatoria on the issue of ownership over the portion of a lot.

Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases are distinct actions. Cruz cannot belatedly claim that petitioners possession of the controverted portion was by mere tolerance. The complaint didnt characterize Sarmientos alleged entry on the landwhether The complaint admitted also of the fact that the fence had already preexisted on

legal or illegal.

the lot when she acquired the same.

This was definitely not a situation obtained in and gave rise to an ejectment suit for two reasons. First, forcible entry into the land is an open challenge to the right of the lawful

possessor, the violation of which right authorizes the speedy redress in the inferior court provided for in the Rules. Second, if a forcible entry action in the court is allowed after the lapse of a number of years, then the result may well be no action of forcible entry can really prescribe. No matter how long such defendant

is in physical possession, the plaintiff may just throw in a demand, file a suit in court and summarily throw him out of the land.
HEIRS OF DIAZ-LEUS VS. MELVIDA,158 SCRA 21 FACTS: 1. Hernani Melvida was the driver of a Plymouth car, travelling North, while Almario Rosas was the driver of a Victory Liner Bus travelling South. 2. The Plymouth car and the Victory Liner figured in an accident along the North Expressway. 3. The car was allegedly driven at a fast speed and in a negligent manner causing it to swerve to the left. 4. The car was then bumped on the rear portion by the Victory Liner bus and dragged about 50 meters off the cemented road. 5. As a result, the passengers of the car namely Dr. Corazon Diaz-Leus and Florencio Carbilledo died while Mrs. Leonisa Gali suffered serious physical injuries. 6. The drivers of both vehicles were then charged of the crime of Reckless Imprudence resulting in Double Homicide, Serious and Slight physical Injuries and Damage to Property. 7. Upon arraignment Melvida and Rosas entered a plea of not guilty. 8. The trial court found Accused Hernani Melvida guilty of the offense charged and acquitted Almario Rosas. 9. The heirs of Dr. Diaz-Leus appealed to the Court of Appeals, only with respect to the civil aspect. 10. According to the CA, the vehicular accident cannot be attributed to any negligence on the part of appellee Rosas, that it was a fortuitous event which appellee Rosas could not prevent. 11. The CA also found that since the appeal on the civil aspect is predicated upon appellee Rosas negligence which does not exist it follows that his acquittal in the criminal case carries with it the extinction of his civil liability and therefore the offended parties may no longer appeal and recover damages from said appellee Rosas. ISSUE: Should the trial court be ordered to determine the civil liability of Rosas and subsidiary civil liability of the owners of the car and the bus in accordance with Article 29 of the Civil Code? HELD: The findings of the CA were a complete exoneration of Rosas. Since petitioners appeal on the civil aspect is predicated upon Rosas alleged negligence which has been found not to exist, the SC likewise upon the Court of Appeals ruling that Rosas acquittal in the criminal case carries with it the extinction of his civil liability which bars herein petitioner form recovering damages from Rosas. Since Rosas is absolved from any act of negligence which in effect prevents further recovery of any damages, the same is likewise true with respect to his employer Victory Line, Inc. which at most would have been only subsidiarily liable. Nor can the spouses Jesus Gali and Leonisa Gali as employers of respondent Hernani Melvida be subsidiarily liable. *** In order that employers may be held liable under Art 103 of the Revised Penal Code, the follwing requisites must exist: 1) That an employee has committed a crime in the discharge of his duties; 2) that said employee is insolvent and has not satisfied his civil liability; and 3) that the employer is engaged in some kind of industry. The preceding requisites are not present in the case of the Gali spouses. They are not engaged in any

kind of industry . *** Thus, the Gali spouses cannot be held subsidiarily liable. Where the defendant is admittedly a private person who has no business or industry, and uses his automobile for private purposes, he is not also subsidiarily liable to the plaintiff for the damages to the latters car cause d by the reckless imprudence of his insolvent driver.

Negotiable Instruments Case Digest: Allied Banking Corp. V. Lim Sio Wan (2008)
G.R. No. 133179

March 27, 2008

Lessons Applicable: Liabilities of the Parties (Negotiable Instruments Law)

FACTS: Lim Sio Wan (deposited 1st money market) > Allied Bank > (pre-terminated and withdrawn) Santos > (through forged indorsement of Lim Sio Wan deposited in FCC account) Metrobank > (release in exchange of undertaking of reimbursement) FCC > (through Santos, as officer of Producers bank, deposited money market) Producers Bank

September 21, 1983: FCC had deposited a money market placement for P 2M with Producers Bank

Santos was the money market trader assigned to handle FCCs account

Such deposit is evidenced by Official Receipt and a Letter

When the placement matured, FCC demanded the payment of the proceeds of the placement

November 14, 1983: Lim Sio Wan deposited with Allied Banking Corporation (Allied) a money market placement of P 1,152,597.35 for a term of 31 days

December 5, 1983: a person claiming to be Lim Sio Wan called up Cristina So, an officer of Allied, and instructed the latter to pre-terminate Lim Sio Wans money market placement, to issue a managers check representing the proceeds of the placement, and to give the check to Deborah Dee Santos who would pick up the check. Lim Sio Wan described the appearance of Santos

Santos arrived at the bank and signed the application form for a managers check to be issued

The bank issued Managers Check representing the proceeds of Lim Sio Wans money market placement in the name of Lim Sio Wan, as payee, cross-checked "For Payees Account Only" and given to Santos

Allied managers check was deposited in the account of Filipinas Cement Corporation (FCC) at Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. (Metrobank), with the forged signature of Lim Sio Wan as indorser

Metrobank stamped a guaranty on the check, which reads: "All prior endorsements and/or lack of endorsement guaranteed."

Upon the presentment of the check, Allied funded the check even without checking the authenticity of Lim Sio Wans purported indorsement.

amount on the face of the check was credited to the account of FCC

December 9, 1983: Lim Sio Wan deposited with Allied a second money market placement to mature on January 9, 1984

December 14, 1983: upon the maturity date of the first money market placement, Lim Sio Wan went to Allied to withdraw it. She was then informed that the placement had been pre-terminated upon her instructions which she denied

Lim Sio Wan filed with the RTC against Allied to recover the proceeds of her first money market placement

Allied filed a third party complaint against Metrobank and Santos

Metrobank filed a fourth party complainagainst FCC

FCC for its part filed a fifth party complaint against Producers Bank.

Summonses were duly served upon all the parties except for Santos, who was no longer connected with Producers Bank

May 15, 1984: Allied informed Metrobank that the signature on the check was forged

Metrobank withheld the amount represented by the check from FCC.

Metrobank agreed to release the amount to FCC after the FCC executed an undertaking, promising to indemnify Metrobank in case it was made to reimburse the amount

Lim Sio Wan thereafter filed an amended complaint to include Metrobank as a partydefendant, along with Allied.

RTC : Allied Bank to pay Lim Sio Wan plus damages and atty. fees

Allied Banks cross-claim against Metrobank is DISMISSED.

Metrobanks third-party complaint as against Filipinas Cement Corporation is DISMISSED

Filipinas Cement Corporations fourth-party complaint against Producers Bank is DISMISSED

CA: Modified. Allied Banking Corporation to pay 60% and Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company 40%

ISSUE: W/N Allied should be solely liable to Lim Sio Wan.

HELD: YES. CA affirmed. Modified Porudcers Bank to reimburse Allied and Metrobank.

Articles 1953 and 1980 of the Civil Code

Art. 1953. A person who receives a loan of money or any other fungible thing acquires the ownership thereof, and is bound to pay to the creditor an equal amount of the same kind and quality.

Art. 1980. Fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple loan.

bank deposit is in the nature of a simple loan or mutuum

money market is a market dealing in standardized short-term credit instruments (involving large amounts) where lenders and borrowers do not deal directly with each other but through a middle man or dealer in open market. In a money market transaction, the investor is a lender who loans his money to a borrower through a middleman or dealer.

Lim Sio Wan, as creditor of the bank for her money market placement, is entitled to payment upon her request, or upon maturity of the placement, or until the bank is released from its obligation as debtor

GR: collecting bank which indorses a check bearing a forged indorsement and presents it to the drawee bank guarantees all prior indorsements, including the forged indorsement itself, and ultimately should be held liable therefor

EX: when the issuance of the check itself was attended with negligence.

Allied negligent in issuing the managers check and in transmitting it to Santos without even a written authorization

Allied did not even ask for the certificate evidencing the money market placement or call up Lim Sio Wan at her residence or office to confirm her instructions.

Allieds negligence must be considered as the proximate cause of the resulting loss.

When Metrobank indorsed the check without verifying the authenticity of Lim Sio Wans indorsement and when it accepted the check despite the fact that it was cross-checked payable to payees account only

contributed to the easier release of Lim Sio Wans money and perpetuation of the fraud

Given the relative participation of Allied and Metrobank to the instant case, both banks cannot be adjudged as equally liable. Hence, the 60:40 ratio of the liabilities of Allied and Metrobank, as ruled by the CA, must be upheld.

FCC, having no participation in the negotiation of the check and in the forgery of Lim Sio Wans indorsement, can raise the real defense of forgery as against both banks

Producers Bank was unjustly enriched at the expense of Lim Sio Wan

Producers Bank should reimburse Allied and Metrobank for the amounts ordered to pay Lim Sio Wan

LEDESMA VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 160 SCRA 449 FACTS: Violeta Delmo was treasurer of an organization formed by students of the West Visayas College. She extended loans from the funds of the club to some of the students of the school. As a result, the school president (petitioner) denied her the right to graduate MAGNA CUM LAUDE despite the order of the Director of the Bureau of Public Schools that she be conferred such honor. ISSUE: Is the school president liable for damages? HELD: [I]It cannot be disputed that Violeta Delmo went through a painful ordeal, which was brought about by the petitioner's neglect of duty and callousness. Thus, moral damages are but proper. The Solicitor- General tried to cover-up the petitioner's deliberate omission to inform Miss Delmo by stating that it was not the duty of the petitioner to furnish her a copy of the Director's decision. Granting this to be true, it was nevertheless the petitioner's duty to enforce the said decision. He could have done so considering that he received the decision XXX and even though he sent it back with the records of the case, he undoubtedly read the whole of it, which consisted of only 3 pages. Moreover, the petitioner should have had the decency to meet Mr. Delmo, the girl's father, and inform the latter, at the very lest of the decision. This, the petitioner failed to do, and not without the attendant bad faith which the appellate court correctly pointed out in its decision.